Comments on: Haley Joel Osment, enemy of orthodoxy http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/ Ruler of Omicron Persei 8 Fri, 18 May 2012 13:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Michael http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-4338 Michael Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:29:20 +0000 http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/#comment-4338 I have not seen "Secondhand Lions", although I hope to one day do so. From your description, however, I can see an entirely different interpretation. How many times, as Christians, does the world present "objective evidence" that there is no God? We can't see God, many of the types of behavior most religions endorse are contrary to primal or even "gut" instincts, and one could point to any random number of "common sense" arguments against the existence of God -- or at least, a living, involved deity. Is is better to allow ourself to float along without making up your mind, or to choose for or against the existence of God (and further, the existence of your relationship with God). Does not scripture itself warn against the "lukewarm"? In my experience, these are the people most difficult to convince of anything, because they allow everything to be decided de facto. Perhaps "believe what you want, but believe SOMETHING" is in fact more against universalism than for it. Just a thought to throw into the mix. I have not seen “Secondhand Lions”, although I hope to one day do so. From your description, however, I can see an entirely different interpretation.

How many times, as Christians, does the world present “objective evidence” that there is no God? We can’t see God, many of the types of behavior most religions endorse are contrary to primal or even “gut” instincts, and one could point to any random number of “common sense” arguments against the existence of God — or at least, a living, involved deity. Is is better to allow ourself to float along without making up your mind, or to choose for or against the existence of God (and further, the existence of your relationship with God).

Does not scripture itself warn against the “lukewarm”? In my experience, these are the people most difficult to convince of anything, because they allow everything to be decided de facto.

Perhaps “believe what you want, but believe SOMETHING” is in fact more against universalism than for it.

Just a thought to throw into the mix.

]]> By: Michael http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-38337 Michael Tue, 10 Jan 2006 01:29:20 +0000 http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/#comment-38337 I have not seen "Secondhand Lions", although I hope to one day do so. From your description, however, I can see an entirely different interpretation.<br><br>How many times, as Christians, does the world present "objective evidence" that there is no God? We can't see God, many of the types of behavior most religions endorse are contrary to primal or even "gut" instincts, and one could point to any random number of "common sense" arguments against the existence of God -- or at least, a living, involved deity. Is is better to allow ourself to float along without making up your mind, or to choose for or against the existence of God (and further, the existence of your relationship with God).<br><br>Does not scripture itself warn against the "lukewarm"? In my experience, these are the people most difficult to convince of anything, because they allow everything to be decided de facto.<br><br>Perhaps "believe what you want, but believe SOMETHING" is in fact more against universalism than for it.<br><br>Just a thought to throw into the mix. I have not seen “Secondhand Lions”, although I hope to one day do so. From your description, however, I can see an entirely different interpretation.

How many times, as Christians, does the world present “objective evidence” that there is no God? We can't see God, many of the types of behavior most religions endorse are contrary to primal or even “gut” instincts, and one could point to any random number of “common sense” arguments against the existence of God — or at least, a living, involved deity. Is is better to allow ourself to float along without making up your mind, or to choose for or against the existence of God (and further, the existence of your relationship with God).

Does not scripture itself warn against the “lukewarm”? In my experience, these are the people most difficult to convince of anything, because they allow everything to be decided de facto.

Perhaps “believe what you want, but believe SOMETHING” is in fact more against universalism than for it.

Just a thought to throw into the mix.

]]> By: nohats.com &#187; Blogging and traffic http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-4337 nohats.com &#187; Blogging and traffic Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:25:15 +0000 http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/#comment-4337 [...] Reading one of his posts, I was reminded of a new trend in traffic engineering. Paradoxically, having fewer signs, narrower roads, and mixing pedestrian and vehicle traffic can result in safer and quicker travel by slowing down traffic. No, I didn’t mis-type: slowing traffic strategically (without signs) can eliminate congestion and increase overall speed.   [...] [...] Reading one of his posts, I was reminded of a new trend in traffic engineering. Paradoxically, having fewer signs, narrower roads, and mixing pedestrian and vehicle traffic can result in safer and quicker travel by slowing down traffic. No, I didn&#8217;t mis-type: slowing traffic strategically (without signs) can eliminate congestion and increase overall speed. &nbsp; [...]

]]> By: Ted http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-4336 Ted Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:54:38 +0000 http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/#comment-4336 Hmmm... do I stop at empty red lights at 3am? I guess I do, but I may not stay stopped. I'd argue that if I do, it is out of my desire to not get a ticket. I'm reminded of one of the new trends in traffic engineering (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html). Paradoxically, removing signs and blurring the line between pedestrians and cars can make traffic run more smoothly and safely. I guess maybe I'm a religious libertarian... Hmmm… do I stop at empty red lights at 3am? I guess I do, but I may not stay stopped. I’d argue that if I do, it is out of my desire to not get a ticket. I’m reminded of one of the new trends in traffic engineering (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html). Paradoxically, removing signs and blurring the line between pedestrians and cars can make traffic run more smoothly and safely. I guess maybe I’m a religious libertarian…

]]> By: Ted http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-38336 Ted Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:54:38 +0000 http://lakeneuron.com/2006/01/08/haley-joel-osment-enemy-of-orthodoxy/#comment-38336 Hmmm... do I stop at empty red lights at 3am? I guess I do, but I may not stay stopped. I'd argue that if I do, it is out of my desire to not get a ticket. I'm reminded of one of the new trends in traffic engineering (<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffi...</a>). Paradoxically, removing signs and blurring the line between pedestrians and cars can make traffic run more smoothly and safely. I guess maybe I'm a religious libertarian... Hmmm… do I stop at empty red lights at 3am? I guess I do, but I may not stay stopped. I'd argue that if I do, it is out of my desire to not get a ticket. I'm reminded of one of the new trends in traffic engineering (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffi…). Paradoxically, removing signs and blurring the line between pedestrians and cars can make traffic run more smoothly and safely. I guess maybe I'm a religious libertarian…

]]>